Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.
In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry. “We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” David said. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”
The court’s decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.
When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him. Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court’s decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence. Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court’s decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Every day, it gets a little worse.
Well, America is rapidly becoming a country where rights only exist for rich people. It was fun for the rest of us while it lasted.
Hopefully this will go to the US Supreme Court and over turned. I agree with the dissenters to some degree.
“Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling”
No you could argue probably cause under the 14th Amendment.
how would this law prevent the violent shoving aside of said apartment dweller?
#3 because they would have been able to tazer and cuff him for resisting their lawful entry – or just shot him through the door (depending on albedo)
I think the police have figured out that, in many cases, there are no penalties (to them) if they violate your civil rights.
The 4th amendment protects search and seizure without a warrant or probable cause. But “probable cause” can be argued about afterwards, when the damage has already been done.
If they had actually charged the guy with a domestic violence crime, he’d probably get the case dismissed because of 4th amendment violations. So, instead, they just beat the shit out of him and charge him with resisting arrest.
Wrong,wrong,wrong. Elevate to the supreme court. My home is sacrosanct. Nobody enters without my permission or a court order or in an emergency such as fire.
so what would you lefty’s say if the cops would have sit outside while this schmuck started beating his wife? you guys cry ‘preventing crime’, but when the cops try to prevent a crime, you all STILL cry foul. i dunno, somebody needs to explain to me where the line of stopping a crime starts sometime. its not like these cops showed up guns a-blazin’ kicking in doors SS style. they were called to investigate a probably crime! so what now, when you call 911 say ‘hey, i think a guy is gonna kill his wife next door to me’ what are the cops supposed to say, ‘kthanksbye’??? and trust me, indiana is NOT a police state by any means (unless you live in Gary)…
In 7, dcphill said: My home is sacrosanct..
Bwahahahaha!
Your home is the place for your stuff, not too much of it and not too nice either.
Know your place.
Didn’t and won’t read the case==maybe the SCt case if it goes that far.
Seems to be a close case?
4th Amend should “stand”: no government entry into home unless invited, search warrant, or reasonable cause.
But what if the cops attempt UNLAWFUL entry into home? Are citizens then authorized to counter this with force? I see that as not addressed by the Fourth Amendment AND I can see “less violence” to all involved if citizen violence is not allowed. Object, submit, then file a lawsuit. That is what I would personally do but if the law is decided oppositely, that the home owner may resist including use of firearms then that is “OK” by me and I will follow my rule regardless because it makes more sense/safety for me and my family.
Sure would be nice if cops had better things to do?
Needs to be overturned.
The decision is crazy, poorly written and unnecessary, esp since under certain circumstances they can enter anyway.
If police are chasing you, and you run to your house they don’t need a warrant to enter.
If they are called out to investigate a domestic disturbance they wont need a warrant – they already have probable cause. I don’t think this guy had any standing to bring suit anyway.
So if the police already have the powers in question, a ruling that gives them an all access pass *regardless of circumstance* is foolish. Right decision for this case, terrible opinion.
This isn’t saying that the cops coming into your home against your will is legal. It is saying that you should not try to physically stop them. If they do not have a warrant, the entry and any search is still illegal. Those changes are still to come.
#12 – there wasn’t a domestic disturbance they were arguing in public and went inside to argue in private. Once they were in private there was no public disturbance and no reason to enter.
If the police thought the man was about to murder the wife there was reasonable cause but since he claimed ‘they’ went inside it was clear he wasn’t dragging the wife in – the police entered unlawfully and is trying to wriggle out of an wrongful arrest suit.
>is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence
What, you don’t believe in a living Constitution?
#8
“so what would you lefty’s say if the cops would have sit outside while this schmuck started beating his wife?”
If they heard him beating his wife or if she cried for help, they’d have probable cause, you dolt.
You’re also a tool for thinking everyone can be placed into either the “left” or the “right.”
I wonder how the judges woud feel if at 2 am the police entered their homes without a warrant. Bet they would love being booked into jail and having to wait to be bailed out as well. HAR! The conservative viewpoint has always been one of the force of law and military trumps the right of the masses (the end justifies the means).
I can’t see this lasting long before the law is struck down by the Supreme court of the US.
Remember the qoute of Madame Defarge:
its death to king louieeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!
—Its bound to happen here
Hmm, weird. Indiana is a red state.
Actually Indiana voted for Obama, so under the modern definition, they are a blue state. Traditionally they should be a red state, because clue meant a vote for the incumbent party.
Plus these judges were probably appointed by Democratic governor Evan Bayh.
@BRM-
How about probable cause? The police have always had the right to enter a premise under emergencies.
“police do not need to sit back and wait until someone is half dead or unconscious before making a warrantless entry into a residence. Rather, a drunken fracas inside a house that involved a juvenile exchanging punch with one of the several adults who were trying to “restrain” him was of sufficient severity for police to enter and prevent further violence under the emergency aid doctrine. In addition, the United States Supreme Court slammed the door shut on whether the exclusionary rule is the appropriate remedy under the Fourth Amendment against officers who fail to comply with the knock and announce rule.”
I stand corrected. These guys came in before Bayh was governor, and judges in Indiana are not appointed by the governor. They pick a name from a list of three prepared by lawyers.
Is there a way to connect this to Gingrich?
Unbelieveable!
This is going to come under the “as a practical matter” heading. Allowing use of force by the occupant makes the potential of violence far greater for both police and citizen. If the police enter illegally or by mistake then you have a court system for a remedy, not street justice. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fringe element, idiot.
Wow. So not to turn this into a law school class, but – this case aside – the Fourth amendment proscribes no unreasonable searches and seizures absent BOTH probable cause AND a warrant.
If you don’t have a warrant, you need what are called “exigent circumstances”, which are (sadly) myriad – but it does include ongoing emergencies (such as someone getting beaten up).
[Michael York voice]
“There is NO Sanctuary”
Translation:
“The 4th Amendment no longer has any place in our “Great Society” and we hereby jettison it by judicial fiat because we no longer even care to make a pretense of caring what the Constitution or Bill of Rights actually says or means.”
AKA:
“You have nor Rights, Slave. Now get back to the Slave Pits!”
@#17 “The conservative viewpoint has always been one of the force of law and military trumps the right of the masses” – common Left misconception linking general support for military and law enforcement to claim that Right in general prefers any of those vs. individual rights. The first fundamental issue on the Right is that of individual freedom. Or is it Left who fights for 2nd Amendment, freedom of speech and related. Progressive Right (and Left), ex. Bush, Obama,… is the group placing collective “right” over individual and hence Patriot Act, Health Care and such.
@#25 “If the police enter illegally or by mistake then you have a court system for a remedy, not street justice. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fringe element, idiot.” – Founders specifically stated that 2nd Amendment is there to protect ordinary citizens from overbearing Government. This is not street justice. No one has the right to break in your house. You have Constitutional right to fight such intrusion. PARTICULARLY when it is Government who is intruding. Government who is PARTICULARLY and FUNDAMENTALLY banned from doing so by the Constitution. That is not fringe. Problem is that most people assume that somehow Government is always right and we need to obey whatever nonsense they throw at us only to fight it in legal system later. Not the intent of the country founders, not the intent of the Constitution. Just result of enslaved mentality.
#4 who you call’n albedo?
I’ll say this as an ex-cop. If you know that a cop is in your housing illegally, SHOOT HIM/THEM!
I mean really truly unlawfully making entry into your domain, like he’s kicked in your door and made a mad dash to your TV or computer (this ruling states they can be robbing you blind, admit it to your face and you can’t do shit) SHOOT HIM!
#1 I don’t think the rich are even going to have any rights. The deal I heard Google being offered today sounds like a nice simple shake down of the sort that might be put forward by a mob boss; old fashioned extortion by the government of one the nations richest businesses to get the money needed to operate by any means legal or otherwise.
I’m sure Dallas can excuse it no doubt on the grounds that Google is rich and needs to pay its fair share. Only thing is it won’t stay rich getting hits like this and while the extortionist may start at the top once this sort of thing is accepted they’ll work their way to down to the poorest of poor.
May God bless and keep you and have a great weekend in America where you need to fear the government as much as the mob.